Author
Topic: Penal Substitution Question (Read 4433 times)

I listened to a Protestant pastor speak the other day, and give an outline of the message of the "gospel".

To paraphrase,

God can't let sin go unpunished, so he punished Jesus instead of us. If you believe that Jesus died as a punishment for your sins and you trust in His blood, then you spend eternity in heaven after you die.

More was said than that, he started with God creating everything good, and talked about the fall, moved on to the ten commandments and how we've all sinned, how we're "saved" by trusting in God's punishment of Jesus, we do nothing, etc. Of all the points that I found myself in disagreement with him, I found this one point to be greatly disturbing more than anything else -

There was no mention of the resurrection. At all. Not once, not even a passing comment in reference to it.

So my question is this -

What role does the resurrection play in the protestant understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement message of the Gospel and how we are saved?

From my experience, it really just seemed to be a nice addition to Christ that proved His Godhood. It wasn't really vital (except in that it may be a legitimate claim to say He isn't God if He didn't rise). I mean, rarely did I read or hear about the Ressurection, except around Easter (and Easter was also a fairly minor holiday, in fact, Good Friday was about 75% as big as Easter). Because the penal substitution theory says that God was angry at the world and was forced to punish them (it is truly great hubris to think any human being can force God to do ANYTHING, punishing or otherwise), but in order to avoid that murdered His Son and had Him tortured for good measure before hand, the work of the Cross is acomplished on the Cross. That is the end of the salvation story. The last chapter is "And He Hung His Head" it is only in the epilogue that you hear about a Ressurection.

Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice. Can you guess what it is?

I listened to a Protestant pastor speak the other day, and give an outline of the message of the "gospel".

To paraphrase,

God can't let sin go unpunished, so he punished Jesus instead of us. If you believe that Jesus died as a punishment for your sins and you trust in His blood, then you spend eternity in heaven after you die.

More was said than that, he started with God creating everything good, and talked about the fall, moved on to the ten commandments and how we've all sinned, how we're "saved" by trusting in God's punishment of Jesus, we do nothing, etc. Of all the points that I found myself in disagreement with him, I found this one point to be greatly disturbing more than anything else -

There was no mention of the resurrection. At all. Not once, not even a passing comment in reference to it.

So my question is this -

What role does the resurrection play in the protestant understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement message of the Gospel and how we are saved?

The Western Church has embraced legalism to explain God. As a result, the West conceives of God as some sort of tyrannical landowner whose property has been violated and therefore demands 'satisfaction'. As a result, any explanation of sin is couched in legalistic terms with the result that Christ must have died because death was the only 'satisfaction' which would appease this God.

Do you remember Mal Gibson's The Passion of Christ? Do recall the overtly bloody and savage scenes where Jesus is brutalized not so much by the Roman soldiers - but by God who demand 'satisfaction'. Was the Guantanamo Jail about 'justice' or about barbarous 'satisfaction'?

So, Yes, the Western Church loves to focus on the death of Jesus just to keep everyone in their place - and for some Protestant churches, there is no tomorrow, there is no resurrection.

From my experience, it really just seemed to be a nice addition to Christ that proved His Godhood. It wasn't really vital (except in that it may be a legitimate claim to say He isn't God if He didn't rise). I mean, rarely did I read or hear about the Ressurection, except around Easter (and Easter was also a fairly minor holiday, in fact, Good Friday was about 75% as big as Easter). Because the penal substitution theory says that God was angry at the world and was forced to punish them (it is truly great hubris to think any human being can force God to do ANYTHING, punishing or otherwise), but in order to avoid that murdered His Son and had Him tortured for good measure before hand, the work of the Cross is acomplished on the Cross. That is the end of the salvation story. The last chapter is "And He Hung His Head" it is only in the epilogue that you hear about a Ressurection.

That was the big change I noticed on my first Great and Holy Friday: we know how the story ends.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

What role does the resurrection play in the protestant understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement

Whereas I readily confess with sadness that we under-emphasise the Resurrection of Christ in our preaching and spirituality, and would earnestly wish to correct that imbalance, I think you might be a little unfair to the pastor you heard by chastising him for not mentioning a subject he wasn't actually dealing with.

As I understand it, the Resurrection does not play a part in the penal substitution aspect of the Atonement, because it was in his death that Christ was our substitute, when he bore our sins in his body on the Tree (as it says).

James Rottneck is sadly not far from the truth when he opines that

Quote

it really just seemed to be a nice addition to Christ that proved His Godhood.

Now I refer not to what we teach formally and officially in our theology books, but to the popular spirituality of the "man in the pew". He does dwell almost entirely on the Cross, and not very much on the Resurrection. This is why I gave a talk at our local Baptist church here under a title something like "What we need to learn from Orthodoxy" and stressed this very matter. Christ did conquer death and bring life and immortality to light: but we dwell on forgiveness much more.

Wayseer is also near the truth in saying

Quote

The Western Church has embraced legalism to explain God

This goes back, if I err not, to Anselm, and has been the foundation of both Catholic and Protestant thinking ever since. But we do not see it as "explaining God"; rather, as I suspect Wayseer really means, it is the usual way of explaining God's way of forgiving man's sin. In my view it is both biblical and true - but it is not the whole or only truth about the Cross. The Bible itself offers us other ways to help us to understand that when Christ died, he secured our pardon and saved us from wrath and hell - if we believe.

Which brings us back to the opening post. It does depend what you mean by "believe". The devils believe - and tremble. It needs to be what Paul (and Wesley frequently after him) calls "the faith that works by love". It is the faith which brings a changed life and the beginning of what you call theosis and we call sanctification.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 03:30:34 PM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

What role does the resurrection play in the protestant understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement

Whereas I readily confess with sadness that we under-emphasise the Resurrection of Christ in our preaching and spirituality, and would earnestly wish to correct that imbalance, I think you might be a little unfair to the pastor you heard by chastising him for not mentioning a subject he wasn't actually dealing with.

It's possible that I mat have been unfair in my assessment of his message, but this seems to me to be too important to leave out of a sermon on how we are "saved", regardless of how someone defines that term. Biblically speaking, there is no salvation without the resurrection.

Quote

As I understand it, the Resurrection does not play a part in the penal substitution aspect of the Atonement, because it was in his death that Christ was our substitute, when he bore our sins in his body on the Tree (as it says).

It also says that we are raised up in His life by His resurrection. St Paul says somewhere (I believe in somewhere in Romans, but not sure) that Christ died for our sins and was raised for our justification, and elsewhere that if He is not raised from the dead that we are still dead in our sins and our faith is in vain. It seems that in Orthodoxy, the cross and the resurrection are never really completely taught apart from each other and are viewed in light of each other.

Quote

James Rottneck is sadly not far from the truth when he opines that

Quote

it really just seemed to be a nice addition to Christ that proved His Godhood.

Now I refer not to what we teach formally and officially in our theology books, but to the popular spirituality of the "man in the pew". He does dwell almost entirely on the Cross, and not very much on the Resurrection. This is why I gave a talk at our local Baptist church here under a title something like "What we need to learn from Orthodoxy" and stressed this very matter. Christ did conquer death and bring life and immortality to light: but we dwell on forgiveness much more.

Thank you for answering this post. I apologize if I seem argumentative in my reply, not my point. I only mean to emphasize why I his think message was at best missing essential elements to our salvation in Christ, and at worst teaching that Christ's resurrection didn't actually accomplish anything for us or that everything was accomlished without the resurrection.

This goes back, if I err not, to Anselm, and has been the foundation of both Catholic and Protestant thinking ever since. But we do not see it as "explaining God"; rather, as I suspect Wayseer really means, it is the usual way of explaining God's way of forgiving man's sin. In my view it is both biblical and true - but it is not the whole or only truth about the Cross. The Bible itself offers us other ways to help us to understand that when Christ died, he secured our pardon and saved us from wrath and hell - if we believe.

I agree that there are multiple ways of describing how we relate to God, and one would have to be entirely ignorant of the scriptures to say that "legal" terminology is not used at all to describe this reality. I also personally believe that all the different "aspects" and "ways of explaning" used all bear witness to the same reality that can't be properly described using just one "explanation" by itself. By that I mean (to use terminology that is both legal and medicinal as an example) that forgiveness and healing can't properly exist apart from each other.

this seems to me to be too important to leave out of a sermon on how we are "saved", regardless of how someone defines that term. Biblically speaking, there is no salvation without the resurrection.

But remember that he was probably talking about the first step in being saved - that is, when one is initially forgiven - and so he would talk about the Cross. You are of course absolutely right in saying that "there is no salvation without the resurrection", and unless the bloke was a heretic, I'm quite sure he'd agree with us on that. But he probably wouldn't bring it into a talk about forgiveness, or on penal substitution.

Quote

we are raised up in His life by His resurrection. St Paul says ... that if He is not raised from the dead that we are still dead in our sins and our faith is in vain.

Amen to that!

Quote

I his think message was at best missing essential elements to our salvation in Christ,

It was; but it was probably intentionally designed to focus on only the first aspect - how forgiveness was achieved. The rest - our life in union with the risen Christ, our progress in sanctification, our final glorification - are all part of our salvation. But I don't bring all that in when I preach on the ground of forgiveness. That is the Cross. But I hold the rest as dearly, and preach on them at other times. Maybe the man you heard is like that.

Quote

forgiveness and healing can't properly exist apart from each other.

Which is presumably what I am saying when I say that a truly repentant and believing person will give evidence of the reality of his faith in a changed life.

« Last Edit: July 02, 2011, 02:14:22 PM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

I listened to a Protestant pastor speak the other day, and give an outline of the message of the "gospel".

To paraphrase,

God can't let sin go unpunished, so he punished Jesus instead of us. If you believe that Jesus died as a punishment for your sins and you trust in His blood, then you spend eternity in heaven after you die.

More was said than that, he started with God creating everything good, and talked about the fall, moved on to the ten commandments and how we've all sinned, how we're "saved" by trusting in God's punishment of Jesus, we do nothing, etc. Of all the points that I found myself in disagreement with him, I found this one point to be greatly disturbing more than anything else -

There was no mention of the resurrection. At all. Not once, not even a passing comment in reference to it.

So my question is this -

What role does the resurrection play in the protestant understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement message of the Gospel and how we are saved?

The Western Church has embraced legalism to explain God. As a result, the West conceives of God as some sort of tyrannical landowner whose property has been violated and therefore demands 'satisfaction'. As a result, any explanation of sin is couched in legalistic terms with the result that Christ must have died because death was the only 'satisfaction' which would appease this God.

Do you remember Mal Gibson's The Passion of Christ? Do recall the overtly bloody and savage scenes where Jesus is brutalized not so much by the Roman soldiers - but by God who demand 'satisfaction'. Was the Guantanamo Jail about 'justice' or about barbarous 'satisfaction'?

So, Yes, the Western Church loves to focus on the death of Jesus just to keep everyone in their place - and for some Protestant churches, there is no tomorrow, there is no resurrection.

Not all Christians accept the penal substitution theory. Yes, Catholic believe that Christ sacrificed his life for our sins, but not according to the protestant notion of being punished in our place. Such a a concept is foreign to the Catholic faith.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Catholic believe that Christ sacrificed his life for our sins, but not ... being punished in our place. Such a a concept is foreign to the Catholic faith.

This post is strange to me. I genuinely thought that Anselm, mediæval monk and archbishop and seminal thinker and writer of the western church, taught exactly this in his Cur Deus Homo. If you say I have misunderstood, or that things have changed, despite this not being a Catholic-Protestant Discussion forum, I would like to hear more, for I know virtually nothing first-hand about Catholicism.

In fact - and here I probably know less but am desirous of being better instructed - did not Augustine of Hippo also teach penal substitution?

It has been said that Catholics and Protestants ask the same questions, and arrive at different answers, whereas Orthodox ask different questions. Hence, I even say in public (which is why I ought to be corrected if I am mistaken) that the legal or forensic approach to Atonement is common to both Catholic and Protestant, but (though present in such writings as Thomas Hopko's, if I understand them aright) under-emphasised or overlooked in usual Orthodox thought and spirituality.

By the way, when I say that I think certain recent developments (say, 1880s onwards) in Baptist circles are probably traceable to ambient Roman Catholic teaching, what I mean is that the Anglicans took it from the Catholics, then came the Ecumenical movement, and so ideas alien to Baptist (or other Free Church) principles are coming to be accepted without really being examined and genuinely accepted as true teaching, or rejected as thoughfully weighed and found wanting. Sort-of osmosis.

« Last Edit: July 02, 2011, 03:30:45 PM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Catholic believe that Christ sacrificed his life for our sins, but not ... being punished in our place. Such a a concept is foreign to the Catholic faith.

This post is strange to me. I genuinely thought that Anselm, mediæval monk and archbishop and seminal thinker and writer of the western church, taught exactly this in his Cur Deus Homo. If you say I have misunderstood, or that things have changed, despite this not being a Catholic-Protestant Discussion forum, I would like to hear more, for I know virtually nothing first-hand about Catholicism.

In fact - and here I probably know less but am desirous of being better instructed - did not Augustine of Hippo also teach penal substitution?

It has been said that Catholics and Protestants ask the same questions, and arrive at different answers, whereas Orthodox ask different questions. Hence, I even say in public (which is why I ought to be corrected if I am mistaken) that the legal or forensic approach to Atonement is common to both Catholic and Protestant, but (though present in such writings as Thomas Hopko's, if I understand them aright) under-emphasised or overlooked in usual Orthodox thought and spirituality.

By the way, when I say that I think certain recent developments (say, 1880s onwards) in Baptist circles are probably traceable to ambient Roman Catholic teaching, what I mean is that the Anglicans took it from the Catholics, then came the Ecumenical movement, and so ideas alien to Baptist (or other Free Church) principles are coming to be accepted without really being examined and genuinely accepted as true teaching, or rejected as thoughfully weighed and found wanting. Sort-of osmosis.

No. None of them taught penal substitution, anymore than the Bible does.

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Actually, I think Aquinas is an even better example of a penal substitution theorist than either Augustine or Anselm.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Actually, I think Aquinas is an even better example of a penal substitution theorist than either Augustine or Anselm.

My understanding is that Aquinas never taught that Jesus Christ bore the eternal penalty for the sin of the world, which is what Protestants teach.

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Actually, I think Aquinas is an even better example of a penal substitution theorist than either Augustine or Anselm.

My understanding is that Aquinas never taught that Jesus Christ bore the eternal penalty for the sin of the world, which is what Protestants teach.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

"The whole human race was subject to sin. To be restored to the state of justice, there would have to be a penalty which man would take upon himself in order to fulfil the order of divine justice. But no mere man could satisfy God sufficiently by accepting some voluntary punishment, even for his own sin, to say nothing of the sin of the whole human race. For when man sins he transgresses the law of God and tries, were he able, to do injury to the God of infinite majesty. The greater the person offended, the greater the crime; we see, for instance, that someone who strikes a soldier is punished more than someone who strikes a farmer, and much more if he strikes a king or prince. Therefore a sin committed against the law of God is somehow an infinite offence.

"Again we must observe that the dignity of the person making reparation is also to be considered. For example, one word of a king asking for pardon of an offence is considered greater than if someone lower went on his knees and showed any other sign of humiliation to beg pardon from the one who suffered the injury. But no mere man has the infinite dignity required to satisfy justly an offence against God. Therefore there had to be a man of infinite dignity who would undergo the penalty for all so as to satisfy fully for the sins of the whole world. Therefore the only-begotten Word of God, true God and Son of God, assumed a human nature and willed to suffer death in it so as to purify the whole human race indebted by sin. Thus Peter says (1 Pet 3:18): "Christ himself died once and for all for sins, the upright for the sake of the guilty."

"On the Reasons of the Faith against the Saracens, Greeks and Armenians"Chapter 7, paragraphs 12 & 13

Actually, I think Aquinas is an even better example of a penal substitution theorist than either Augustine or Anselm.

My understanding is that Aquinas never taught that Jesus Christ bore the eternal penalty for the sin of the world, which is what Protestants teach.

I suspect that your church has not gone so far with it, into teaching that God turned his back on Christ, but it certainly appears that Aquinas taught that the punishment that was rightfully ours was transmuted to Jesus for our redemption.

« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 04:04:58 AM by deusveritasest »

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

It really seems that Aquinas was the origin of penal substitution theory proper rather than Luther.

Anselm appears to be the origin of the broader branch that is satisfactionary atonement, but I don't think his form was penal.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Actually, I think Aquinas is an even better example of a penal substitution theorist than either Augustine or Anselm.

My understanding is that Aquinas never taught that Jesus Christ bore the eternal penalty for the sin of the world, which is what Protestants teach.

I suspect that your church has not gone so far with it, into teaching that God turned his back on Christ, but it certainly appears that Aquinas taught that the punishment that was rightfully ours was transmuted to Jesus for our redemption.

In a sense he did take on the "wages" (or "punishment" as a legal analogy, in a sense it is what is due to us as a consequence of our own personal transgressions) of our sin, which is death. But then again, it was not so that we did not receive those wages ourselves (we still have to die), but so that by incorporating himself into our death, he could incorporate us us into his resurrection and redeem us from (do or "pay" that which is necessary to make us no longer subject to) our sin and death. If the wages of sin, that is death (our "sentence" in legal terms), is ultimately undone (that is by Christ's resurrection, without which we would still be dead, not because it is a "sign" of something, but an actual accomplishing act of our salvation), then the curse that we are born into no longer exists, and our personal transgressions in which we have rightfully made ourselves subject to death (our "sentence") no longer stand between us and God (we are "acquitted" of our "crimes" to use legal terminology).

But the "legal" aspect of the Gospel can't be taken too literal or strict by itself outside of the context of healing, victory, rescuing, etc. And we certainly can't take it to the extreme of "God can't truly forgive a sinner without first exacting His revenge on someone perfectly innocent and undeserving". And we also can't preach a "half-gospel" where Christ takes the wages of our sin on the cross, but never nullifies those wages in His resurrection.

We are united to Him in His death and raised up in His resurrection.

Jesus didn't tell the good thief on the cross "Ok, you can get down off that cross now that you acknowledge My innocent suffering that you properly deserve, I got it from here", but rather "This day you will be with Me in paradise."

Actually, I think Aquinas is an even better example of a penal substitution theorist than either Augustine or Anselm.

My understanding is that Aquinas never taught that Jesus Christ bore the eternal penalty for the sin of the world, which is what Protestants teach.

I suspect that your church has not gone so far with it, into teaching that God turned his back on Christ, but it certainly appears that Aquinas taught that the punishment that was rightfully ours was transmuted to Jesus for our redemption.

In a sense he did take on the "wages" (or "punishment" as a legal analogy, in a sense it is what is due to us as a consequence of our own personal transgressions) of our sin, which is death. But then again, it was not so that we did not receive those wages ourselves (we still have to die), but so that by incorporating himself into our death, he could incorporate us us into his resurrection and redeem us from (do or "pay" that which is necessary to make us no longer subject to) our sin and death. If the wages of sin, that is death (our "sentence" in legal terms), is ultimately undone (that is by Christ's resurrection, without which we would still be dead, not because it is a "sign" of something, but an actual accomplishing act of our salvation), then the curse that we are born into no longer exists, and our personal transgressions in which we have rightfully made ourselves subject to death (our "sentence") no longer stand between us and God (we are "acquitted" of our "crimes" to use legal terminology).

But the "legal" aspect of the Gospel can't be taken too literal or strict by itself outside of the context of healing, victory, rescuing, etc. And we certainly can't take it to the extreme of "God can't truly forgive a sinner without first exacting His revenge on someone perfectly innocent and undeserving". And we also can't preach a "half-gospel" where Christ takes the wages of our sin on the cross, but never nullifies those wages in His resurrection.

We are united to Him in His death and raised up in His resurrection.

Jesus didn't tell the good thief on the cross "Ok, you can get down off that cross now that you acknowledge My innocent suffering that you properly deserve, I got it from here", but rather "This day you will be with Me in paradise."

Do you think our differing views on whether God punished Christ for our sins could have arisen from the translations we use? Take Isaiah 53:10, for instance.

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand" (Authorized Version).

"The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound, and if You give an offering for sin, Your soul shall see a long-lived seed" (Orthodox Study Bible).

These two translations aren't exactly saying the same thing.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 01:20:40 AM by mathetes »

Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

Do you think our differing views on whether God punished Christ for our sins could have arisen from the translations we use?

I don't think it's a translation issue. Western Christianity has always had a tendency to use legal terminology for expressing the reality of our salvation in Christ. Combine that with the fact that what are probably the two most influential leaders of the Protestant reformation (Luther and Calvin) were highly educated lawyers before they studied theology, and what you get is men who know nothing better than law studying something expressed mainly in legal terminology. I believe that has made more of a difference historically than how a few verses are translated.

Do you think our differing views on whether God punished Christ for our sins could have arisen from the translations we use?

I think you also need to look at the words propitiate and propitiation.

Christ's death is likened in scripture to the payment of a ransom; to a propitiation; to a vicarious punishment for man's sin. All of these I have preached and probably shall preach again - the Lord sparing me - many times. But I see them as illustrations taken from human life and culture, to help us grasp the fact that, on the Cross, Christ has done all that is necessary in the will of the Father to redeem us. I do not see them as deep, all-embracing, satisfactory explanations of what happened between God the Father and God the Son.

I think C S Lewis puts it succinctly, beautifully and memorably, when he describes the death of Aslan, which likewise saved Edmund in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe from the law of sin and death: he calls it deeper magic from before the dawn of time. Is that not really what Christ's redeeming death was? A hidden mystery which operated within the counsels of the Godhead, beyond human comprehension?

If we Evangelicals believe that Christ's dying for us was a ransom, a propitiation, our punishment borne vicariously, and if you Orthodox see Christ's death as paying in some way for your sin, sufficiently to secure God's forgiveness, surely that is faith? And it is faith that God requires, not understanding. The rest is there to help us believe, to get some human idea we can hold on to of what Christ did for us.

I have said before, and may say again, that Thomas Hopko's writings on the death of Christ warm the heart and cause me to believe that, as they say, your faith and mine meet at the foot of the Cross.

« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 03:14:19 PM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Not all Christians accept the penal substitution theory. Yes, Catholic believe that Christ sacrificed his life for our sins, but not according to the protestant notion of being punished in our place. Such a a concept is foreign to the Catholic faith.

You are quite correct:

"If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment…. If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin."

Do you think our differing views on whether God punished Christ for our sins could have arisen from the translations we use?

I think you also need to look at the words propitiate and propitiation.

Christ's death is likened in scripture to the payment of a ransom; to a propitiation; to a vicarious punishment for man's sin. All of these I have preached and probably shall preach again - the Lord sparing me - many times. But I see them as illustrations taken from human life and culture, to help us grasp the fact that, on the Cross, Christ has done all that is necessary in the will of the Father to redeem us. I do not see them as deep, all-embracing, satisfactory explanations of what happened between God the Father and God the Son.

I think C S Lewis puts it succinctly, beautifully and memorably, when he describes the death of Aslan, which likewise saved Edmund in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe from the law of sin and death: he calls it deeper magic from before the dawn of time. Is that not really what Christ's redeeming death was? A hidden mystery which operated within the counsels of the Godhead, beyond human comprehension?

If we Evangelicals believe that Christ's dying for us was a ransom, a propitiation, our punishment borne vicariously, and if you Orthodox see Christ's death as paying in some way for your sin, sufficiently to secure God's forgiveness, surely that is faith? And it is faith that God requires, not understanding. The rest is there to help us believe, to get some human idea we can hold on to of what Christ did for us.

I have said before, and may say again, that Thomas Hopko's writings on the death of Christ warm the heart and cause me to believe that, as they say, your faith and mine meet at the foot of the Cross.

Pastor David, I have often wondered about CS Lewis' portrayal of our Lord in the lion Aslan.

It is notable that Aslan offered himself as a sacrifice not for to his father across the sea but to the white witch. What do you make of this?

Likewise, what do you make of the concept of the deeper magic? I see it as a Christianised copy of the pagan Greek concept of necessity/anange, which I find troubling.

Aslan offered himself as a sacrifice ... to the white witch. What do you make of this?

Likewise, what do you make of the concept of the deeper magic? I see it as a Christianised copy of the pagan Greek concept of necessity/anange, which I find troubling.

Let's number these 1 and 2.

1. The early Fathers debated to whom the ransom was paid, and of course it is a futile speculation, as the scriptures never say, and I do not think we are intended to press the matter that far. I think (as I said above) that it is a partial illustration. Christ's death was the price which released us from captivity to sin and death. Likewise, I doubt that CSL would have wished us to push his children's story too far into theological analysis and speculation. I suspect what he wished to convey was that Aslan died in Edmund's place, to help us with one thought in the illustration, namely, that Christ died in our place.

2. I fear I am no Classicist, and must confess entire ignorance concerning pagan Greek concepts. What I mean (and of course, I cannot know what prompted CSL to use this phrase) is that the 'magic' by which Christ's death saved us is deeper than our minds can grasp, and has its origin in eternity, and in the mind of the Triune God, rather than only in the culture and possibilities of this present world or age.

3. Maybe this is also germane. I began life, as we all do, as an unbeliever, and when my parents insisted on my going occasionally to church with them, I was baffled by the very idea that a death 2000 years ago could affect me today - not affect me emotionally, I mean, but actually work something within me or for me. Then I came to 'see' the idea of substitutionary punishment for my sin, and it made sense: it enabled me to believe, and to trust that death as being satisfaction for my wrongdoings. So, aged 16 or so, I became a Christian. Now, later on, whilst still happy to preach that same teaching of substitutionary atonement, to help people believe and trust, I find I understand it less, but believe more strongly in the effective power of that death to redeem me. As the hymn has it:How it was done, we can't discuss;But this we know - 'twas done for us.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 03:39:55 AM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

This post is strange to me. I genuinely thought that Anselm, mediæval monk and archbishop and seminal thinker and writer of the western church, taught exactly this in his Cur Deus Homo.

I agree.

Anslem refuted the 'ransom' theory of Origen and Gregory of Nyssa and claimed; 'everyone who sins must repay to God the honor that he has taken away, and this is the satisfaction that every sinner ought to make to God'.

One of the more common topics both on this blog and on a number of other Orthodox sites are questions about the Atonement. In general the Atonement refers to how it is we understand that Christ reconciled us to God. When we say, “Christ died for our sins,” what does it mean?

The questions of the Orthodox tend to center around the doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement, which in conservative Evangelical circles is often made a touchstone of Christian orthodoxy. It is referenced in many Christian schools’ statement of faith – required of teachers and students on a par with the Resurrection of Christ.

Aslan offered himself as a sacrifice ... to the white witch. What do you make of this?

Likewise, what do you make of the concept of the deeper magic? I see it as a Christianised copy of the pagan Greek concept of necessity/anange, which I find troubling.

Let's number these 1 and 2.

1. The early Fathers debated to whom the ransom was paid, and of course it is a futile speculation, as the scriptures never say, and I do not think we are intended to press the matter that far. I think (as I said above) that it is a partial illustration. Christ's death was the price which released us from captivity to sin and death. Likewise, I doubt that CSL would have wished us to push his children's story too far into theological analysis and speculation. I suspect what he wished to convey was that Aslan died in Edmund's place, to help us with one thought in the illustration, namely, that Christ died in our place.

2. I fear I am no Classicist, and must confess entire ignorance concerning pagan Greek concepts. What I mean (and of course, I cannot know what prompted CSL to use this phrase) is that the 'magic' by which Christ's death saved us is deeper than our minds can grasp, and has its origin in eternity, and in the mind of the Triune God, rather than only in the culture and possibilities of this present world or age.

3. Maybe this is also germane. I began life, as we all do, as an unbeliever, and when my parents insisted on my going occasionally to church with them, I was baffled by the very idea that a death 2000 years ago could affect me today - not affect me emotionally, I mean, but actually work something within me or for me. Then I came to 'see' the idea of substitutionary punishment for my sin, and it made sense: it enabled me to believe, and to trust that death as being satisfaction for my wrongdoings. So, aged 16 or so, I became a Christian. Now, later on, whilst still happy to preach that same teaching of substitutionary atonement, to help people believe and trust, I find I understand it less, but believe more strongly in the effective power of that death to redeem me. As the hymn has it:How it was done, we can't discuss;But this we know - 'twas done for us.

Thank you for this.

If all evangelicals approached the atonement in this manner I don't think I would have any theological quarrel with them.

With all respect to Pastor David, I would include the word "often." In America penal substitution is not only central to many Protestants, it's often times the only view of atonement they will accept. This has become especially common with the "neo-reformed" movement in evangelicalism.

I've been told I ascribe to a view of penal substitution, but I often find myself in disagreement with fellow evangelicals over the issue. For instance, Jesus wasn't punished for our sins, rather I would say that Scripture teaches that He bore the ramifications of our sins. The difference between the two is vast; for one, Jesus is treated as a sinner, in another He is merely accepting the consequences of our sins, an innocent victim to our malice, but all so that we might be saved.

Certainly the atonement is for more than saving us from death (though this is obviously part of it). Something happens in the atonement between Christ and our sins, though I wouldn't go so far as to say that He takes a punishment we deserve.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

He was treated as a sinner, in fact He was treated as the most vile human being ever. The difference would be in "who" is treating Christ in this manner. We are the ones that unjustly accused Him, sentenced Him to death, and executed that sentence. In the end, it was Christ Himself who laid down His life and commended His spirit to the Father, but it was God Who raised Him up, and The Jews who delivered Him to be executed as a criminal and the gentiles who carried it out.

He was treated as a sinner, in fact He was treated as the most vile human being ever. The difference would be in "who" is treating Christ in this manner. We are the ones that unjustly accused Him, sentenced Him to death, and executed that sentence. In the end, it was Christ Himself who laid down His life and commended His spirit to the Father, but it was God Who raised Him up, and The Jews who delivered Him to be executed as a criminal and the gentiles who carried it out.

Correct, nor would I take any contention with this, nor would most Protestants.

I think the issue is over what exactly occurred in the Atonement. For my own edification and learning, what exactly is the Orthodox position (if any), or at least what are the common views?

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

So Father, it would appear what you are saying is that the Orthodox look at the "Atonement" as a mystery and that all the various competing views in the West are all pretty much true?

From what you describe it seems that's where I currently am on my view of the Atonement (people ask me which view I embrace and I always answer, "The one that has Jesus saving us"). This seems to be a common theme in my journey towards Orthodoxy; I believe something and then discover it's what the Orthodox have been teaching for 2,000 years.

As a caveat, if this is the "view" of the Orthodox Church, then would substitutionary atonement necessarily be wrong if taken as a part of the atonement?

I'm also only asking to I can get a better understanding before I go to my Priest on this issue. I love him very much and don't want to waste his time, so I try to get as many answers as I can before asking him questions.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 08:21:08 PM by theo philosopher »

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

So we were ransomed from death and corruption by Christ's substitution on the Cross in order that we would undergo an ontological change through theosis and thus be saved from the "everlasting punishment" which those who have not put on Christ and thus remain united to death and corruption will undergo.

David,Again, in my mind, this raises the questions:1) To whom was the "ransom from death and corruption" paid?2) If a substitution was required for the forgiveness of sin, how could Christ forgive the sins of the Paralytic and the Woman caught in adultery before this substitution had taken place?3) If Theosis was impossible before the "substitution", how did Elijah not die and get taken up into Heaven in his body and meet Christ on Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration?

I mention this only because, as you say, such ideas of substitution and ransom may be "very comfortable to Western ears", but in this day and age, when people are questioning the basis of our belief, such questions can be raised and are quite valid, and we need to be ready with an answer.

2) If a substitution was required for the forgiveness of sin, how could Christ forgive the sins of the Paralytic and the Woman caught in adultery before this substitution had taken place?3) If Theosis was impossible before the "substitution", how did Elijah not die and get taken up into Heaven in his body and meet Christ on Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration?

We always teach that the Atonement worked backwards as well as forwards in time. If we had lived before Calvary, but somehow got knowledge of present-day theories of the Atonement, we might well ask the very opposite of your question: How could Christ forgive the sins of David Young, seeing they had not yet been committed? It is written that at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly; but what happened in time, God saw in eternity, and it was sufficient for the sins of all people in all ages. Surely it had to be: if Jesus was God, then it must carry infinite worth.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

2) If a substitution was required for the forgiveness of sin, how could Christ forgive the sins of the Paralytic and the Woman caught in adultery before this substitution had taken place?3) If Theosis was impossible before the "substitution", how did Elijah not die and get taken up into Heaven in his body and meet Christ on Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration?

[size=10ptWe always teach that the Atonement worked backwards as well as forwards in time. If we had lived before Calvary, but somehow got knowledge of present-day theories of the Atonement, we might well ask the very opposite of your question: How could Christ forgive the sins of David Young, seeing they had not yet been committed? It is written that at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly; but what happened in time, God saw in eternity, and it was sufficient for the sins of all people in all ages. Surely it had to be: if Jesus was God, then it must carry infinite worth.[/size]

So you have no problems with the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary? They justify it by using your same argument - that the salvific merits of Christ on the Cross were "pre-applied" to Mary at the time of her conception.

So you have no problems with the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary? They justify it by using your same argument - that the salvific merits of Christ on the Cross were "pre-applied" to Mary at the time of her conception.

I think you are writing tongue (or keyboard) in cheek.

However, if the dogma of the Immaculate Conception means she was sinless, then I can't see the link between the two. Calvary met the need of sinners; it has nothing to do in our teaching with the idea of someone being born without sin. If there were such a person, and if that person never sinned in subsequent life, then he or she would have no need of the benefit of Calvary, backwards or forwards, having no sin from which to be cleansed, surely?

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

So you have no problems with the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary? They justify it by using your same argument - that the salvific merits of Christ on the Cross were "pre-applied" to Mary at the time of her conception.

I think you are writing tongue (or keyboard) in cheek.

However, if the dogma of the Immaculate Conception means she was sinless, then I can't see the link between the two. Calvary met the need of sinners; it has nothing to do in our teaching with the idea of someone being born without sin. If there were such a person, and if that person never sinned in subsequent life, then he or she would have no need of the benefit of Calvary, backwards or forwards, having no sin from which to be cleansed, surely?

If God had not chosen to pre-apply the salvific merits of Christ and Calvary to Mary at her conception would she not have been born into the Original Sin which is the fate of every other human?

How is this any different than God pre-applying, as you say, the merits of Christ and Calvary to the Pharisee and the woman taken in adultery. Like Mary they too are "covered with the blood of the Lamb" before the Blood has even been shed and atonement is made fror their sins before the Atonement has occured on the Cross.

2) If a substitution was required for the forgiveness of sin, how could Christ forgive the sins of the Paralytic and the Woman caught in adultery before this substitution had taken place?3) If Theosis was impossible before the "substitution", how did Elijah not die and get taken up into Heaven in his body and meet Christ on Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration?

[size=10ptWe always teach that the Atonement worked backwards as well as forwards in time. If we had lived before Calvary, but somehow got knowledge of present-day theories of the Atonement, we might well ask the very opposite of your question: How could Christ forgive the sins of David Young, seeing they had not yet been committed? It is written that at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly; but what happened in time, God saw in eternity, and it was sufficient for the sins of all people in all ages. Surely it had to be: if Jesus was God, then it must carry infinite worth.[/size]

So you have no problems with the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary? They justify it by using your same argument - that the salvific merits of Christ on the Cross were "pre-applied" to Mary at the time of her conception.

A good point, but I would contend that the Immaculate Conception only works if one accepts the Roman Catholic dogma of original sin, which even most Protestants don't accept (if they do, yet deny infant baptism, well then...).

Still, you've given me much to think about. What do we do with the passages speaking of Him acting as sin for those who had no sin and the other a-typical passages used in support of penal substitution? I'm not asking for a major run-down, just a brief overview of how they are typically interpreted. As you can tell, I'm not interested in a debate, just learning and evaluating opinions.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Mary ... would she not have been born into the Original Sin which is the fate of every other human?

She was - if by "original sin" you mean born with a fallen nature; if you mean the Augustinian concept of original (that is, inherited) guilt, personally I've never been persuaded of that anyway, as it seems to be Augustine's misunderstanding derived from his reading the NT in a faulty Latin translation and not in the Greek original (or at least a better translation). You don't get original guilt in the Really Sound Version, which is what I've mainly used for nigh on forty years.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

A good point, but I would contend that the Immaculate Conception only works if one accepts the Roman Catholic dogma of original sin, which even most Protestants don't accept (if they do, yet deny infant baptism, well then...).

Tenderheartedness towards unbaptized children has never been a hallmark of Protestantism. Good for the Catholics for trying to deal with this problem by creating the state called "Limbo" for unbaptized babies. As I understand classic Protestantism all of the human race is conceived and born in sin and is damned from the moment of conception by the justice of God. If some are saved later in life this is seen as an act of God's loving kindness who acts to bring a person to faith in Christ and to salvation. Those who are not in this blessed state, and that includes babies, remain in their original state of sin and damnation, unjustified in the eyes of God, and they are rightfully damned.

A good point, but I would contend that the Immaculate Conception only works if one accepts the Roman Catholic dogma of original sin, which even most Protestants don't accept (if they do, yet deny infant baptism, well then...).

Tenderheartedness towards unbaptized children has never been a hallmark of Protestantism. Good for the Catholics for trying to deal with this problem by creating the state called "Limbo" for unbaptized babies. As I understand classic Protestantism all of the human race is conceived and born in sin and is damned from the moment of conception by the justice of God. If some are saved later in life this is seen as an act of God's loving kindness who acts to bring a person to faith in Christ and to salvation. Those who are not in this blessed state, and that includes babies, remain in their original state of sin and damnation, unjustified in the eyes of God, and they are rightfully damned.

Perhaps this might be a sign of another difference. Sin and death are what is overcome on the cross and in the resurrection. Our salvation consists of being untied to God and being raised in a state of glory in the final resurrection. Orthodoxy tends to focus on these things where most if not all Protestant preaching is about escaping gehenna by being declared "not guilty".

There are actually two ways around this concerning children. One way is to have everyone born "guilty" and destined for gehenna. The other is not uncommon, and defers them to the age of reason or accountability where if they are not fully conscious of their sin, then they are not responsible and can't be found "guilty" and therefore are undeserving of gehenna.

As I understand classic Protestantism all of the human race is conceived and born in sin and is damned from the moment of conception by the justice of God. If some are saved later in life this is seen as an act of God's loving kindness who acts to bring a person to faith in Christ and to salvation. Those who are not in this blessed state, and that includes babies, remain in their original state of sin and damnation, unjustified in the eyes of God, and they are rightfully damned.

Yes, sadly I believe you are right. They swallowed Augustine's notions on this, hook, line and sinker. Nonetheless, you would be hard put to it to find a Christian who actually thinks like that, except perhaps among the most rigid of orthodox Calvinists. Most people take the view of King David, the man after God's heart, whose infant died, and who asserted, "He will not come back to me, but I shall go to him."

I must look it up, but I seem to remember that it is a faulty translation of Romans 5.12 that gave rise to the idea that we all "sinned in Adam" and were therefore born already guilty. Perhaps one of you can find that Latin for us?

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

A good point, but I would contend that the Immaculate Conception only works if one accepts the Roman Catholic dogma of original sin, which even most Protestants don't accept (if they do, yet deny infant baptism, well then...).

Tenderheartedness towards unbaptized children has never been a hallmark of Protestantism. Good for the Catholics for trying to deal with this problem by creating the state called "Limbo" for unbaptized babies. As I understand classic Protestantism all of the human race is conceived and born in sin and is damned from the moment of conception by the justice of God. If some are saved later in life this is seen as an act of God's loving kindness who acts to bring a person to faith in Christ and to salvation. Those who are not in this blessed state, and that includes babies, remain in their original state of sin and damnation, unjustified in the eyes of God, and they are rightfully damned.

That's more Calvinism and their belief in Total Depravity. Other more evangelical branches out of the Weslyan tradition would (typically) have no problem admitting that infants go to Heaven.

But I see what you're saying and I am inclined to agree (with the point of the overall discussion). I know you've already answered this a bit, so please feel free to pass as this might be repetitive, but what then could we say does happen in the atonement?

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

But I see what you're saying and I am inclined to agree (with the point of the overall discussion). I know you've already answered this a bit, so please feel free to pass as this might be repetitive, but what then could we say does happen in the atonement?

Well, the word "atonement" is a peculiar English contribution to theological vocabulary and does not in fact correspond to any Greek or Hebrew word.

So I suppose the first task is to ask you for a definition of "atonement" and where you find it in the original Scriptures.

But I see what you're saying and I am inclined to agree (with the point of the overall discussion). I know you've already answered this a bit, so please feel free to pass as this might be repetitive, but what then could we say does happen in the atonement?

Well, the word "atonement" is a peculiar English contribution to theological vocabulary and does not in fact correspond to any Greek or Hebrew word.

So I suppose the first task is to ask you for a definition of "atonement" and where you find it in the original Scriptures.

Fair enough, Father.

When you put it that way, it makes me realize that the word "atonement" already comes loaded. Searching for a definition, I find certain theories of the 'atonement' implicit within the definition; the philosopher in me irks at the circular logic that I've been holding onto for all these years!

Perhaps it would be best to rephrase the question then. What would we say Christ accomplished in His life, death, and resurrection? Recently I have taken to saying, "Jesus saved us" as a way to shirk my responsibility to providing a nuanced explanation. But I am interested in a nuanced explanation.

From my reading of the Church Fathers, specifically the Cappadocian Fathers and, of course, St. John of Damascus, it would seem that we could say that Christ saved us from our sins, from death, from separation from the Father, from ourselves, and so on.

Is there a book, an article, or a short explanation on the Orthodox view of what Christ accomplished in His life, death, and resurrection?

Also, I thank you for your patience with me on this issue. I called to set an appointment with my priest today to discover he is still out of town until tomorrow.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Only 20 minutes in and I love it (still watching though). Thank you Father.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Are the Holy Fathers of the Desert seen as an authentic source of true Orthodox teaching?

From Histories of the Monks of Upper Egypt and the Life of Onnophrius, Page 38:

Quote

Abba Aaron answers:

I will not hide anything from you, my son, regarding your question. Indeed, he said, when I remember the afflictions my good Saviour endured for us until he redeemed our race from the captivity of the Devil__He gave His body and soul for us__I say, Since God took it upon himself to suffer on our behalf, it is right that we too should have every kind of affliction until he has mercy on us on the day of reckoning. And when he had said these things, we rose that day and left and came home.

Wait, is that supposed to be suspect language from an Orthodox perspective?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Are the Holy Fathers of the Desert seen as an authentic source of true Orthodox teaching?

From Histories of the Monks of Upper Egypt and the Life of Onnophrius, Page 38:

Quote

Abba Aaron answers:

I will not hide anything from you, my son, regarding your question. Indeed, he said, when I remember the afflictions my good Saviour endured for us until he redeemed our race from the captivity of the Devil__He gave His body and soul for us__I say, Since God took it upon himself to suffer on our behalf, it is right that we too should have every kind of affliction until he has mercy on us on the day of reckoning. And when he had said these things, we rose that day and left and came home.

Not being dense here, but do you care to exegete that a little so that I understand how you see this relating to concept of penal substitution?

Are the Holy Fathers of the Desert seen as an authentic source of true Orthodox teaching?

From Histories of the Monks of Upper Egypt and the Life of Onnophrius, Page 38:

Quote

Abba Aaron answers:

I will not hide anything from you, my son, regarding your question. Indeed, he said, when I remember the afflictions my good Saviour endured for us until he redeemed our race from the captivity of the Devil__He gave His body and soul for us__I say, Since God took it upon himself to suffer on our behalf, it is right that we too should have every kind of affliction until he has mercy on us on the day of reckoning. And when he had said these things, we rose that day and left and came home.

Not being dense here, but do you care to exegete that a little so that I understand how you see this relating to concept of penal substitution?

Initially I was thinking of it as a response to the notion that Orthodoxy has no teaching concerning something called the atonement, according to Father Ambrose, NZ. I thought we could begin there.

Also I was thinking that while we are looking for ways to define "atonement", it might also be good to see how one can define "redemption" or "redeemed" or "redeemer"...

Also I'll go back to the fact that in Latin poena can and does in the mind of the Church mean "to lack something, or to be deprived of something"...so "punishment" has a different sort of forensic meaning when it is used by the Church, regardless of what the pedestrian meanings may be in any given generation.

Are the Holy Fathers of the Desert seen as an authentic source of true Orthodox teaching?

From Histories of the Monks of Upper Egypt and the Life of Onnophrius, Page 38:

Quote

Abba Aaron answers:

I will not hide anything from you, my son, regarding your question. Indeed, he said, when I remember the afflictions my good Saviour endured for us until he redeemed our race from the captivity of the Devil__He gave His body and soul for us__I say, Since God took it upon himself to suffer on our behalf, it is right that we too should have every kind of affliction until he has mercy on us on the day of reckoning. And when he had said these things, we rose that day and left and came home.

Not being dense here, but do you care to exegete that a little so that I understand how you see this relating to concept of penal substitution?

Initially I was thinking of it as a response to the notion that Orthodoxy has no teaching concerning something called the atonement, according to Father Ambrose, NZ. I thought we could begin there.

It is certainly clear that there is a representative or substitutionary element in this passage, but I also think that it could very well be argued that the emphasis of the purpose of this substitution is not atonement (reconciliation with God), but rather rescue from the oppressive powers of evil.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Are the Holy Fathers of the Desert seen as an authentic source of true Orthodox teaching?

From Histories of the Monks of Upper Egypt and the Life of Onnophrius, Page 38:

Quote

Abba Aaron answers:

I will not hide anything from you, my son, regarding your question. Indeed, he said, when I remember the afflictions my good Saviour endured for us until he redeemed our race from the captivity of the Devil__He gave His body and soul for us__I say, Since God took it upon himself to suffer on our behalf, it is right that we too should have every kind of affliction until he has mercy on us on the day of reckoning. And when he had said these things, we rose that day and left and came home.

Not being dense here, but do you care to exegete that a little so that I understand how you see this relating to concept of penal substitution?

Initially I was thinking of it as a response to the notion that Orthodoxy has no teaching concerning something called the atonement, according to Father Ambrose, NZ. I thought we could begin there.

It is certainly clear that there is a representative or substitutionary element in this passage, but I also think that it could very well be argued that the emphasis of the purpose of this substitution is not atonement (reconciliation with God), but rather rescue from the oppressive powers of evil.

Seems to me that you cannot have the latter without recourse to the former.

Are the Holy Fathers of the Desert seen as an authentic source of true Orthodox teaching?

From Histories of the Monks of Upper Egypt and the Life of Onnophrius, Page 38:

Quote

Abba Aaron answers:

I will not hide anything from you, my son, regarding your question. Indeed, he said, when I remember the afflictions my good Saviour endured for us until he redeemed our race from the captivity of the Devil__He gave His body and soul for us__I say, Since God took it upon himself to suffer on our behalf, it is right that we too should have every kind of affliction until he has mercy on us on the day of reckoning. And when he had said these things, we rose that day and left and came home.

Not being dense here, but do you care to exegete that a little so that I understand how you see this relating to concept of penal substitution?

Initially I was thinking of it as a response to the notion that Orthodoxy has no teaching concerning something called the atonement, according to Father Ambrose, NZ. I thought we could begin there.

It is certainly clear that there is a representative or substitutionary element in this passage, but I also think that it could very well be argued that the emphasis of the purpose of this substitution is not atonement (reconciliation with God), but rather rescue from the oppressive powers of evil.

Seems to me that you cannot have the latter without recourse to the former.

You mean that you can't have rescue without atonement?

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

Are the Holy Fathers of the Desert seen as an authentic source of true Orthodox teaching?

From Histories of the Monks of Upper Egypt and the Life of Onnophrius, Page 38:

Quote

Abba Aaron answers:

I will not hide anything from you, my son, regarding your question. Indeed, he said, when I remember the afflictions my good Saviour endured for us until he redeemed our race from the captivity of the Devil__He gave His body and soul for us__I say, Since God took it upon himself to suffer on our behalf, it is right that we too should have every kind of affliction until he has mercy on us on the day of reckoning. And when he had said these things, we rose that day and left and came home.

Yes, for centuries in the early Catholic Church the common teaching was that"Atonement" was made to the Devil. So it is no surprise at all to find it in your quote from one of the desert fathers.

But the idea of the "Atonement" as a Ransom to the Devil was gradually repudiatedand we see this in no uncertain terms in Saint Gregory Nazianzen (4th century) who said:

"Was it paid to the evil one? Monstrous thought!The devil receives a ransom not only from God but of God ..To the Father? But we were not in bondage to him ...And could the Father delight in the death of his Son?"(Orationes, 45.22)

Of course salvation can be thought of as a ransom. Following the Church Fathers, the East teaches that Christ, on the Cross, gave "His life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28), (Mark 10:45).

The "ransom" is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea(Hosea 13:14), "I will ransom them from the power of the grave, I will redeem them fromdeath."

In a sense, He pays the ransom-atonement-propitiation to the devil who is the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14)."Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanityso that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--thatis, the devil."

But despite Gregory's objections above the idea became popular. Saint Gregoryprotested that the question of "Who received the payment?" should not be pressedhard. No matter what debt the Devil was owed it could not possibly have includedGod himself. On the other hand, the Father could not have been the recipient ofthe ransom, since he was not the one holding us captive. And if the blood ofIsaac had not pleased him, why would he desire the blood of his beloved son?

Saint Gregory sums up:"the Father accepts Christ's sacrifice without havingdemanded it; the Son offers it to honour him; and the result is the defeat ofthe Evil One. This is as much as we shall say of Christ; the greater portionshall be reverenced with silence."

But as we know the silence was broken 700 years later by Anselm the "Scholastic Doctor"and the West conjured up new theories of substitutionary atonement, utterly convincedthat the major player was a wrathful God in need of appeasement.

These Protestant writers lay much stress on the last words of the twelfth verse. We know that several of the Latin Fathers understood the words "in whom all have sinned", to mean, all have sinned in Adam… Modern exegesis, as well as the Greek Fathers, prefer to translate "and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned".

Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt.

This passage teaches the imputation of Adam’s sin to every member of the human family. The sin of Adam is the sin of all. All have sinned in Adam. … the sin of Adam is imputed to every son and daughter of Adam. The imputation of Adam’s sin to all is the immediate ground of their condemnation.

Paul therefore is not speaking of personal sin (or sins) in vs. 12, but of the sin of Adam imputed to all.

Augustine based the formulation of inherited sin on a passage of the Vulgate. The last phrase, in quo omnes peccaverunt, (applied to Adam) [in whom all have sinned] … Augustine's main support for the doctrine collapses with the poor translation of this passage in the Vulgate

As Geofrey Chaucer has it in his Canterbury Tales: Lat Austyn have his swynk to him reserved!

« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 07:08:15 AM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Are the Holy Fathers of the Desert seen as an authentic source of true Orthodox teaching?

From Histories of the Monks of Upper Egypt and the Life of Onnophrius, Page 38:

Quote

Abba Aaron answers:

I will not hide anything from you, my son, regarding your question. Indeed, he said, when I remember the afflictions my good Saviour endured for us until he redeemed our race from the captivity of the Devil__He gave His body and soul for us__I say, Since God took it upon himself to suffer on our behalf, it is right that we too should have every kind of affliction until he has mercy on us on the day of reckoning. And when he had said these things, we rose that day and left and came home.

Not being dense here, but do you care to exegete that a little so that I understand how you see this relating to concept of penal substitution?

Initially I was thinking of it as a response to the notion that Orthodoxy has no teaching concerning something called the atonement, according to Father Ambrose, NZ. I thought we could begin there.

It is certainly clear that there is a representative or substitutionary element in this passage, but I also think that it could very well be argued that the emphasis of the purpose of this substitution is not atonement (reconciliation with God), but rather rescue from the oppressive powers of evil.

Seems to me that you cannot have the latter without recourse to the former.

You mean that you can't have rescue without atonement?

If you mean by atonement, as you have said, that it is reconciliation with God, and IF you understand reconciliation with God as opening up the potential once again for the restoration of original justice for all creation and for each one of us individually, then yes...I mean you cannot have "rescue"...or the redemption [buying back] of salvation...without being open to the saving grace of God.

But I actually have no idea what you have in mind. I do know what I have said above is Catholic teaching on atonement.

Since we see original sin as the loss of original justice and a darkening of the will and intellect...it all fits nicely. Christ redeems all creation. He is the new Adam but even more in that he can indeed make all things new. And that is what it means for him to be the Redeemer King. We have a share in that redemptive act and Baptism is necessary for each individual precisely because Redemption is an opening of the door...Baptism is us...walking through the door by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Christ died for ALL of us, and he bears the sins of the world...however he does not do our part for our individual sins. In that sense penal substitution would be badly expressed IF it says that each individual is redeemed without having to take up their part of the redemptive act.

The "ransom" of atonement is the restoration of original justice...that is all that Anselm is trying to say...or the core of it.

Christ died for ALL of us, and he bears the sins of the world...however he does not do our part for our individual sins. In that sense penal substitution would be badly expressed IF it says that each individual is redeemed without having to take up their part of the redemptive act.

Hark! Do I hear (heaved forbid!) intimations of an heretical "Dixit Maria"?

Is it no longer Roman Catholic teaching that even the least serious of sins is an offence against the infinite majesty and justice of God and therefore no finite human being has the power to make any atonement acceptable to Him?

Christ died for ALL of us, and he bears the sins of the world...however he does not do our part for our individual sins. In that sense penal substitution would be badly expressed IF it says that each individual is redeemed without having to take up their part of the redemptive act.

Hark! Do I hear (heaved forbid!) intimations of an heretical "Dixit Maria"?

Is it no longer Roman Catholic teaching that even the least serious of sins is an offence against the infinite majesty and justice of God and therefore no finite human being has the power to make any atonement acceptable to Him?

I have no idea what you are complaining about now. I don't see any contradictions.

It is certainly clear that there is a representative or substitutionary element in this passage, but I also think that it could very well be argued that the emphasis of the purpose of this substitution is not atonement (reconciliation with God), but rather rescue from the oppressive powers of evil.

When a salve was "redeemed", that is his freedom bought, he was made no longer subject to the one who had previously owned him and, I remember hearing somewhere, that the newly freed person now belonged to one of the gods, therefore no man could have ownership over him.

This is why St Paul writes that we were set free from sin and made slaves of righteousness, and that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life.

He also writes that one cannot partake of the Lord's table and the table of demons.

Reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ does rescue us from oppressive powers, and cannot be had while under the authority of those oppressive powers.

This is why the atonement can't defined as one single analogy, but the context of multiple analogies (healing, rescue, legal forgiveness, etc.) all combined. Atonement is not one thing accomplished by Christ's death and resurrection, but everything accomplished by it.

It is certainly clear that there is a representative or substitutionary element in this passage, but I also think that it could very well be argued that the emphasis of the purpose of this substitution is not atonement (reconciliation with God), but rather rescue from the oppressive powers of evil.

When a salve was "redeemed", that is his freedom bought, he was made no longer subject to the one who had previously owned him and, I remember hearing somewhere, that the newly freed person now belonged to one of the gods, therefore no man could have ownership over him.

This is why St Paul writes that we were set free from sin and made slaves of righteousness, and that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life.

He also writes that one cannot partake of the Lord's table and the table of demons.

Reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ does rescue us from oppressive powers, and cannot be had while under the authority of those oppressive powers.

This is why the atonement can't defined as one single analogy, but the context of multiple analogies (healing, rescue, legal forgiveness, etc.) all combined. Atonement is not one thing accomplished by Christ's death and resurrection, but everything accomplished by it.

Seems pretty plain to me, in much the same way.

What is not acceptable is to think or teach that we've been excused from our personal sins by the Redemption of the Life Death and Resurrection of Jesus. We must participate in that redemption in order to find our way clear of our personal sins and their consequences as those consequences wreak havoc with divine justice on a very broad band.